Early Gibson Les Pauls/Leo Fender Fenders

[Diminished Triad]

I've heard a few although seems like '58 or '59?
The Fender story provides a clear explanation as to why there was a drop in quality from late '64 and on...
Is the '59 generally regarded as the best year for Gibson Les Pauls......and if so....does this mean current day remakes/re-issues of other years have much difference/impact on whether one year's re-issue is better than another's? For example, if in '65 after Leo Fender's transfer of ownership and operation of Fender was complete resulting in lower quality (more mass produced) guitars, does that mean a current day re-issue of a '65 should be viewed as any worse than a Fender from earlier years? Thanks for any info you can share!

 

[DrNewcenstein]

Re: Early Gibson Les Pauls/Leo Fender Fenders

All of it is smoke and mirrors spewed by screw-counting freaks to further artificially inflate the value of the items in their vaults.

I have not seen any evidence that mass production *by skilled humans* has negatively affected build quality, but I have seen plenty of examples of a corporate body seeking low-cost materials and methods yet maintaining or increasing the retail price result in a lesser-quality product.

 

[Falloffthebonetone]

Re: Early Gibson Les Pauls/Leo Fender Fenders

I like the 60s a lot better than the 59s. Slimmer neck.
Quality control for those early Gibson's were all over the place. Some were amazing, others were garbage. Look up everything Jimmy Page did to his 59 to get it to sound good. That guitar was also just flat out GIVEN to him by Joe Walsh I believe. Meanwhile others have left theirs stock and they sound marvelous.

It is generally the 57-60 les pauls that get the praise because those were the years they first got the humbuckers in them. 57's were usually gold tops then 58 through 60 had the iconic bursts. 58 and 59 had a lot of good flame tops, 60s went more plain. They discontinued shortly after that and the SG which was originally named Les Paul as well held down the fort until the original Les Paul was reissued with demand coming back. Lot of artist names associate themselves with 59 les pauls, but a lot were 58 and 60 too.

The reissues are MUCH more consistent, and the 60 reissue NOS I played was a dream. I would say they make them with a lot more care and consistency than they did back then, not just carelessly winding pickups to whatever and then slapping an alnico magnet in there with whatever charge or number and not bothering to pot them or match their outputs etc (sounds could range from thin and screechy microphonic to fat and sustainy). At least they SHOULD for what they charge for those things. From the specs, it looks like they do. They do weigh a ton most of the time. But I'm sure someone with more experience here will tell me how they got to play every 59 ever and the worst one still smoked any reissue ever made because vintage is always better.

Hendrix tore up Woodstock on a 68 strat, after the so called "golden age" of Fender. I think he even said he preferred the later ones, he certainly owned more of them than ones before 64. I'll try to find a quote. Often times, hype is just that, hype. And often times there is no compromise in mass producing something, and it becomes a good move all around for quality, but a lot of snobs will still insist the old days had it better.

 

[ItsaBass]

Re: Early Gibson Les Pauls/Leo Fender Fenders

There is no "best year" for any of those guitars. They vary wildly from copy to copy. Many guitars made back then were real dogs - probably a much higher percentage than what comes out of almost any respectable guitar factory today. Things are collectible and valuable not necessarily because they are good, but because they are fashionable/popular.

 

[Funkfingers]

Re: Early Gibson Les Pauls/Leo Fender Fenders

Fender guitars are screwed together out of whatever is in the parts bin today. There is no hard fast date of when production went from completely fabulous to utter sh!te overnight.

 

[uOpt]

Re: Early Gibson Les Pauls/Leo Fender Fenders

The Fender story provides a clear explanation as to why there was a drop in quality from late '64 and on...

Which is?

 

[Funkfingers]

Re: Early Gibson Les Pauls/Leo Fender Fenders

An even clearer example of this mythological baloney is the PRS Singlecut.

When Gibson went to litigation, PRS was obliged to cease and disist from producing the disputed instruments. Parts for the next run were already made at this time.

When the court proceedings ended, PRS resumed production using the parts that were already in storage. Logically, the first new output and the so-called "pre-lawsuit" instruments are as close to identical as it is possible to get.

People with vested interests would have you believe that one is magically better than the other.

 

[Aceman]

Re: Early Gibson Les Pauls/Leo Fender Fenders

"Best" is such a meaningless term for musical instruments. Best HOW; Looks, feel, tone, quality, durability?

I honestly believe 99% of the "59" Les Paul or whatever is myth. We have romanticized it as vintage and classic and old and whatever. I REALLY find it hard to believe that with CNC, modern measurement tools, and aftermarket parts, that any company does not make a generally superior product in most ways to whatever they put out 50 years ago.

Depends what you want/need/prefer.

At the end of the day though, I bet NOBODY (Even Eric Johnson) could pick a 50's from 60's, from 70's or whatever. And in a blind play/listen test, I bet most would be surprised. 9 out of 10 wouldn't pick a 59 Les Paul over whatever year.

And the random factor and LACK of modern knowledge on tone/electronics/manufacturing produced a lot turds back then too.

 

[jake_xms3_punk]

Re: Early Gibson Les Pauls/Leo Fender Fenders

i think of it like food, a gormet burger from a fancy restaurant is going to be a million times better than a McDonalds burger. The qualified, experienced chef is going to pay more attention to detail because it's his passion, the kid in McDonalds doesn't care what your burger looks or tastes like coz he knows people are going to buy them anyway and pay his wages.

I'm sure McDonald's was much better before it got so popular, better quality ingredients used, more pride taken in their food etc but today it's just mass produced "food" made as cheaply as humanly possible for the biggest profit margin.

 

[Aceman]

Re: Early Gibson Les Pauls/Leo Fender Fenders

i think of it like food, a gormet burger from a fancy restaurant is going to be a million times better than a McDonalds burger. The qualified, experienced chef is going to pay more attention to detail because it's his passion, the kid in McDonalds doesn't care what your burger looks or tastes like coz he knows people are going to buy them anyway and pay his wages.

I'm sure McDonald's was much better before it got so popular, better quality ingredients used, more pride taken in their food etc but today it's just mass produced "food" made as cheaply as humanly possible for the biggest profit margin.

Yeah - but that assumes FLAVOR is the only relevant factor.

consider….

I have 30 minutes for lunch. CAn't wait on prima-donna chef to get his freaking ground beef 'just right'

I am miles away from Gourmet Burger land and I can't get to it.

I don't have a reservation and I'm hungry for a burger now.

I really don't disagree with the flavor, but refuse to pay 100x the price of a Big Mac for something that is still essentially, 800 calories of ground beef.


I think Ibanez is WAY more concerned about delivering quality at a competitive price than some over-paid jackwad at Gibson who is looking at crappy binding and going "but it's a GIBSON" or setting intonation and going "Whatever - it's a GIBSON"

 

[Funkfingers]

Re: Early Gibson Les Pauls/Leo Fender Fenders

If the OP is referring to the CBS takeover of Fender then, yes, cost cutting and increased production targets took their toll on quality and attention to detail … on some specific products.

Given better health and adequate funding, Leo could have expanded his business in the mid Sixties. It is difficult to imagine that he would have rushed into solid state amplification in the way that CBS attempted to. The tried and tested Fender prototype development and refining approach would have seen to that. Something closer to the MusicMan HD hybrid amps would have been the result.

 

[2manyguitars]

Re: Early Gibson Les Pauls/Leo Fender Fenders

As far as Fender goes I think it's mostly a matter of opinion, a 54 Stratocaster has it's ups & downs just like the newer Fenders? Some people say anything after CBS was complete crap while others love the 70's style Strats with the big headstock & logo. It would make sense that a newer guitar would be better because of modern CNC mills, hi tech equipment, & improvements in electronics over the years.That said, when Leo was building the 1st Fenders he wasn't just selling a guitar, he was selling the 1st mass produced eclectic guitar, & he was selling his name. I'm almost positive he put a lot more pride into each build than they do these days, def. much more than some dude running Q.C. in Mexico??? I love Fenders & I've been playing them almost my whole life. I think if it was made in the US & were are not concerned @ all about value, just sound & playability I'd say the modern ones are better but only because of the advancements in tech. Although, there are some very lucky guys who still play their 50's-60's Fenders. I don't know where my 97 Jazzmaster or my newer Srtat's & Tele's will be 60yrs from now but I'd like to think they will still be making noise & making people happy!!! As far as Gibson goes, they haven't built a decent guitar 4 under $7,000.00 in 25 years! Even if you do spend that kind of money you'll end up with a plank of wood, nasty fret wire, & some strings. That Gibson logo makes it sound sooooooo much better though, right!!! That's a bunch of B.S.! Can they even buy Ebony again? I know they had some trouble a few years back & started to bake maple necks in a effort to recreate the sound? It didn't work!!! Personally I think they've just been selling their name for the past two decades with no real regard for the product or quality control. Fender is not perfect by any means but at least they give you the illusion that they try to care??? If you are lucky enough to have a LP that doesn't suck that's great but I haven't found one yet that hasn't been a 30lb P.O.S.! I had a 70's Gibson L6-S when I was younger & that was a beautiful guitar! I guess after that they stopped caring about what they made & started to only think about how much they could make?

"ONLY A GIBSON IS GOOD ENOUGH" -Them "A GIBSON IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR FIRE WOOD"-Me

 

[Chris of Arabia]

Re: Early Gibson Les Pauls/Leo Fender Fenders

Thought so, just a timing issue...

 

[2manyguitars]

Re: Early Gibson Les Pauls/Leo Fender Fenders

Sorry, I'll take that back. In the mid/late 90's the 2 pickup Night Hawk was a awesome guitar!!! They went & added a S.C. in the mid pos. & now they suck as much as the Epiphones!!!!

 

[Snake Aces]

Re: Early Gibson Les Pauls/Leo Fender Fenders

I'm almost positive he put a lot more pride into each build than they do these days, def. much more than some dude running Q.C. in Mexico???

As far as Gibson goes, they haven't built a decent guitar 4 under $7,000.00 in 25 years! Even if you do spend that kind of money you'll end up with a plank of wood, nasty fret wire, & some strings. That Gibson logo makes it sound sooooooo much better though, right!!! That's a bunch of B.S.! Can they even buy Ebony again? I know they had some trouble a few years back & started to bake maple necks in a effort to recreate the sound? It didn't work!!! Personally I think they've just been selling their name for the past two decades with no real regard for the product or quality control. Fender is not perfect by any means but at least they give you the illusion that they try to care??? If you are lucky enough to have a LP that doesn't suck that's great but I haven't found one yet that hasn't been a 30lb P.O.S.! I had a 70's Gibson L6-S when I was younger & that was a beautiful guitar! I guess after that they stopped caring about what they made & started to only think about how much they could make?

"ONLY A GIBSON IS GOOD ENOUGH" -Them "A GIBSON IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR FIRE WOOD"-Me

1. What's wrong with Mexico?

2. Gibson hasn't built a decent guitar under $7k in 25 years is the most ridiculous statement I've read in a few years. Biased much? Gibson has built some of the best instruments I've played from the 2000's and no, they were not custom shops. We are talking $1200 - $2000 instruments. Beautiful craftsmanship, beautiful play-ability, beautiful tone, beautiful guitars. I personally am not impressed with Fender, at all. However, that is just my opinion. I'm not going to go around forums bashing Fender guitars just because I do not like them. I have owned and played plenty of Fenders and not a single one is as nice as my Warmoths or Gibsons have been. However, again, that is just my opinion!

So, go ahead and send those "30 lb" hunk of junk Gibson fire wood guitars my way and I'll teach you a thing or two about how nice a Gibson can play and sound.

 

[Diminished Triad]

Re: Early Gibson Les Pauls/Leo Fender Fenders

I'd prefer a guitar made today...and would like to know if a re-issue from a year where either the Gibsons or Fenders reportedly suffered from drops in quality serves as an "equator" ....basically nullifying any drop or perceived drop in quality. So for example, a Fender re-issue from '63 and one from '65 no longer have the differences they may have if actually produced in '63 and '65?

Just looking for opinions and again realize that someone's preference or conclusion of what is best for him/her doesn't mean it is so. Kind of like voting for a new design for a pickup.....there isn't an absolute "best" but lots of personal opinions on what the voter perceives to be best.....aka "preferred." Thanks again!

 

[AlexR]

Re: Early Gibson Les Pauls/Leo Fender Fenders

I'd prefer a guitar made today...and would like to know if a re-issue from a year where either the Gibsons or Fenders reportedly suffered from drops in quality serves as an "equator" ....basically nullifying any drop or perceived drop in quality. So for example, a Fender re-issue from '63 and one from '65 no longer have the differences they may have if actually produced in '63 and '65?

Ya know, even though I thought I could never again be surprised by the odd way some people's minds work, comments like this show how wrong I am.

 

[Edgecrusher]

Re: Early Gibson Les Pauls/Leo Fender Fenders

I'd prefer a guitar made today...and would like to know if a re-issue from a year where either the Gibsons or Fenders reportedly suffered from drops in quality serves as an "equator" ....basically nullifying any drop or perceived drop in quality. So for example, a Fender re-issue from '63 and one from '65 no longer have the differences they may have if actually produced in '63 and '65?

Just looking for opinions and again realize that someone's preference or conclusion of what is best for him/her doesn't mean it is so. Kind of like voting for a new design for a pickup.....there isn't an absolute "best" but lots of personal opinions on what the voter perceives to be best.....aka "preferred." Thanks again!

Your way over thinking it... Forget that the guitar is suppose to be a reissue and look at it just for exactly what it is. Most reissues really miss the mark in terms of actually recreating the old finishes. Many dont even try to. Many reissues arent even vaugely what like what they are suppose to be. I have a MIJ 62 reissue strat from 92... It came with a 5 way selector switch... a 2 burst but no wood showing through was actually 2 shades of paint... thick plastic poly finish...

It was a reissue of a guitar that fender never made... and this is quite common among reissues. Even guitars that supposedly come in nitrocellulose finishes its a different nitro than they had 40 years ago. The wood curing was different. If you really get down to brass tacks no reissue is dead on. Does that mean they are bad guitars? No... some of them are very fine guitars... But

The point is... all this invalidates your question of would a reissue of a 63 be better than a reissue of a 65... the answer is... it depends... and it certainly doesnt depend on what fender did 40 years ago... It depends on what approach they decide to take with that guitar.

 

[Edgecrusher]

Re: Early Gibson Les Pauls/Leo Fender Fenders

Gibson goes, they haven't built a decent guitar 4 under $7,000.00 in 25 years!

This has gotta be one of the most ignorant statements ive come across on here in at least... a week or so. I get it you dont dig gibson... You will be in good company around here, there are many that hate on Gibson here.

But be that as it may even today you can find killer gibsons for sub 2k. Let alone what you could get 25 years ago.

But I get the feeling I'm urinating into the wind here. I mean this.. this is pure troll gold...

Can they even buy Ebony again? I know they had some trouble a few years back & started to bake maple necks in a effort to recreate the sound? It didn't work!!!

Please tell me that you didnt read this somewhere... and if you did could you please cite sources. Not talking about the baked maple I know all about it. I'm talking about that it was a attempt to recreate the sound of ebony... please i want you to cite a source for that.

 

[Diminished Triad]

Re: Early Gibson Les Pauls/Leo Fender Fenders

I still want one day to be able to get the Gibson Tom Scholz Les Paul.....probably the last Gibson I'll get for a while. But something about Boston and Scholz that combined with the Gibson signature guitar (and the pickups) pretty cool!